It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: carewemust
Go get em Grenell!
abcnews.go.com...
originally posted by: carewemust
Re: twitter.com...
Am I selfish for not caring if someone doesn't believe that Q is a legitimate White House insider?
I could see the connection early on. If others don't care enough to do their own digging, I leave them alone, in the belief that one day everyone will know that Q and Q+ are connected...including the current crop of skeptics/cynics.
originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: carewemust
I think there is an extremely dangerous line being walked when you endorse criminal prosecution of press members based on fact -checking. Lying to people in front of a camera is not a crime, but it is certainly defamatory in this case. Perhaps the government or Barr could bring a civil suit.
But I would not support prosecution of media members or politicians for lying, even Schiff. Nail Schiff to the wall for leaking classified material, not lying.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
First Fox News placed former House Speaker PAUL RYAN on its board. Then Trey Gowdy was hired to make sure no top Obama Admin officials were suspected by the general public. It was just "menials" like Strzok, Page, Ohr,..who were loose canons.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
First Fox News placed former House Speaker PAUL RYAN on its board. Then Trey Gowdy was hired to make sure no top Obama Admin officials were suspected by the general public. It was just "menials" like Strzok, Page, Ohr,..who were loose canons.
originally posted by: pheonix358
originally posted by: onehuman
a reply to: pheonix358
So Im curious then. If you are trying to read someones mind or send them a thought or say using ESP for something, would that all fall under their ownership or be considered using their airwaves? If they have this control over the airwaves, does this mean they have the right to try and read or influence our minds using said airwaves?
You have to go back a step and ask what are they sending.
Are they sending safety messages about electricity as one example, that would be a community service.
Are they sending subliminal or some other version of mind control at the behest of people that wish to destroy the US of A, that would be TREASON.
Do they have the right, only if We The People allow it.
P
originally posted by: crankyoldman
Can't wait for the spin on this...
@adamhousley
To be fair, they spied on everyone, as in everyone.
Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: 2f5a79 No.9134665 📁
May 11 2020 23:01:07 (EST) NEW
EXyV2F7WAAM2sVn.png
⬇
www.realclearpolitics.com...📁
Listen very carefully.
Q
originally posted by: Trillium
Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 05/12/20 (Tue) 00:01:072f5a79 (1) No.9134665
File (hide): cd2b2b7c7383942⋯.png (135.22 KB, 448x503, 448:503, EXyV2F7WAAM2sVn.png) (h) (u)
www.realclearpolitics.com...
Listen very carefully.
Q
qanon.pub...
originally posted by: FlyingFox
a reply to: fringeofthefringe
imo Gowdy panders to Trump skeptics by framing his arguments with their stale info, instead of "now we know...".
It seems like he's simply broadening the audience for these subjects in general, like how "any publicity is good publicity".
Graham tends towards the same playbook, and I think it's for the reason I said. They trade a tiny bit of their staunch Republican reputation to "hook" followers from the middle of the pond, so when they inevitably drop truth bombs, they already have the ear of a certain demographic.